209 publicly-reported accidental shootings by children so far in 2015

[Chiropteran]

Actually, if you look at my post on the statistics, you'll see that suicide numbers were cited separately. In fact, I specifically bolded the non-suicide statistics precisely so people like you couldn't make the claim you just did. Here' I'll repeat the quotation again:




The odds are four-to-one against, even EXCLUDING suicides.

But why am I surprised that even with non-suicide statistics broken out separately, you still insist they're not? Is this what you mean by "honesty?"

Okay, that source is laughable at best. It just says the chance of a homicide occurring in the home is higher. That doesn't mean the chance of the gun owner being killed is higher. The fact that they didn't clarify this makes me think they are trying to hide something- the reality of it is probably that most of the "increased homicides" are robbers being killed by gun owners in self defense.

Do you know what felony murder is?

a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder.

When a home robbery goes bad, and the home owner shoots and kills "bob" (a name for one robber), all the other criminals involved in that robbery are on the hook for felony murder. They didn't actually kill "bob", but they are all on the hook for a murder charge. In fact, in a single home robbery, there could be be 1 self defense killing and 4 homicides, statistically, even though only one person was actually killed.

Without further clarification, I have to assume that the above situations are muddling the statistics.

 

[momeNt]

Oops. Backsliding.

So you're contention is that a PURPOSE of purchasing a self-defense gun is cleaning and maintenance of the gun?

What's a self-defense gun?

We are mixing up purpose and use, and derived utility or happiness from ownership.

Human action is a curious thing, and I don't think it's as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be.

 

[BoberFett]

The truth is so difficult for you that you hate the truth bearers?

Truth? You're not posting truth. You're posting opinion. You should learn the difference between the two. And yes, Democrats believing that their opinion is truth is a large part of why I despise you. "Liberals" are the new Puritans. You're barely recognizable from the religious right. The only difference is who you worship and which type of morality you want to shove down people's throats.

 

[PokerGuy]

Truth? You're not posting truth. You're posting opinion. You should learn the difference between the two. And yes, Democrats believing that their opinion is truth is a large part of why I despise you. "Liberals" are the new Puritans. You're barely recognizable from the religious right. The only difference is who you worship and which type of morality you want to shove down people's throats.

Yup, exactly. It's amazing to see how he just assumes his opinion of whether something is "useful" or "entertaining" is "truth" and fact.

Sadly, just as religious nuttiness from the Bible belt is finally waning in it's influence, his new kind of of stupidity is on the rise.

 

[shira]

Okay, that source is laughable at best. It just says the chance of a homicide occurring in the home is higher. That doesn't mean the chance of the gun owner being killed is higher. The fact that they didn't clarify this makes me think they are trying to hide something- the reality of it is probably that most of the "increased homicides" are robbers being killed by gun owners in self defense.

Do you know what felony murder is?

a rule of criminal statutes that any death which occurs during the commission of a felony is first degree murder, and all participants in that felony or attempted felony can be charged with and found guilty of murder.

When a home robbery goes bad, and the home owner shoots and kills "bob" (a name for one robber), all the other criminals involved in that robbery are on the hook for felony murder. They didn't actually kill "bob", but they are all on the hook for a murder charge. In fact, in a single home robbery, there could be be 1 self defense killing and 4 homicides, statistically, even though only one person was actually killed.

Without further clarification, I have to assume that the above situations are muddling the statistics.

"Homicides" and "unintentional shooting deaths or injuries" are listed as separate items with separate counts. Furthermore, there was never any claim here that the "gun owner" him- or herself was at higher risk. The claim was that the gun would do more harm than good.

But you already knew all this. You just can't stand being wrong, and you're twisting every word you know how to twist.

Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time on you anymore.

 

[shira]

Truth? You're not posting truth. You're posting opinion. You should learn the difference between the two. And yes, Democrats believing that their opinion is truth is a large part of why I despise you. "Liberals" are the new Puritans. You're barely recognizable from the religious right. The only difference is who you worship and which type of morality you want to shove down people's throats.

Sorry. I've posted links to reputable websites.

In response, I get lies, denials, twisting of words. But interesting, not a single link.

But I'm the one being dishonest.

 

[shira]

Yup, exactly. It's amazing to see how he just assumes his opinion of whether something is "useful" or "entertaining" is "truth" and fact.

Sadly, just as religious nuttiness from the Bible belt is finally waning in it's influence, his new kind of of stupidity is on the rise.

I see. The site linked in the OP is "opinion?" The statistics linked on shootings in the home are just "opinion?"

And YOU have provided what, exactly, that isn't "opinion?" Oh that's right, nothing.

The right-wing modus operandi all over again: If it's backed by figures, dismiss it. Scientific conspiracy, that's what it is.

 

[shira]

What's a self-defense gun?

We are mixing up purpose and use, and derived utility or happiness from ownership.

Human action is a curious thing, and I don't think it's as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be.

A gun purchased for self defense.

Was that hard?

 

[DrPizza]

No, what I've done is attracted a hoard of self-deluding gun nuts that will do anything to avoid confronting the actual issue. The key for the right, as usual, is diversion, diversion, diversion. Anything but address the actual issue.

No gun can possibly be purchased solely for self defense, because PEOPLE CLEAN THEIR GUNS. Now there's a devastating counter-argument.

It cannot possibly be the case that keeping a gun for self-defense purposes is a horrible decision on cost-benefit grounds because PEOPLE ARE KILLED DRIVING CARS. Another devastating counter-argument.

Who can possibly counter such genius? The answer is no one. Because people who make such arguments are incapable of rational discourse.

Edit: And you yourself are entirely missing the point, too. This thread isn't about gun control. It's about people's decision to purchase a gun for self defense.

Gun purchaser: "I'm purchasing this gun to defend my family."

Me: "But there's a much greater chance that gun will kill a member of your family than defend it."

Gun purchaser: "Stop trying to take away my gun."​

Actually, if you look at my post on the statistics, you'll see that suicide numbers were cited separately. In fact, I specifically bolded the non-suicide statistics precisely so people like you couldn't make the claim you just did. Here' I'll repeat the quotation again:




The odds are four-to-one against, even EXCLUDING suicides.

But why am I surprised that even with non-suicide statistics broken out separately, you still insist they're not? Is this what you mean by "honesty?"

Soooooo... according to what you're implying, owning a gun CAUSES there to be more crimes in that household? I'm not questioning your statistics - I'm questioning the assertions that you and those presenting those statistics are making.

In other words, did you know that in households that own snow shovels, people are 4 times as likely to fall and slip on the sidewalk?

Digest that for a moment. Is that statistic true because people doing something with shovels to cause the sidewalk to become slipperier than usual? Or is it that households that own shovels for clearing snow are... drum roll... more likely to be in locations where there's more snow?


You are making a claim that it's a cause and effect that owning a gun increases the risk to a homeowner. Do your statistics do anything to eliminate instances where there's a strong correlation? E.g., drug dealers may be more likely to own guns - there's more likely to be violence at a drug dealer's house. That doesn't mean that Joe Smith who hasn't hunted in 10 years, and still keeps a hunting rifle (solely) for protection has suddenly increased his risk of violence fourfold. I sincerely question your reasoning ability if you really think that statistic is genuine, versus is simply a correlation due to the fact that a high percentage of high crime homes also have weapons present.

 

[momeNt]

A gun purchased for self defense.

Was that hard?

What's the difference between a gun purchased for self defense and a gun purchased for target practice? I don't think if you were presented with the gun you would be able to tell the difference.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Actually, if you look at my post on the statistics, you'll see that suicide numbers were cited separately. In fact, I specifically bolded the non-suicide statistics precisely so people like you couldn't make the claim you just did. Here' I'll repeat the quotation again:

The odds are four-to-one against, even EXCLUDING suicides.

But why am I surprised that even with non-suicide statistics broken out separately, you still insist they're not? Is this what you mean by "honesty?"

Your statistics ignore cases in which defensive gun use does not injure or kill anyone, which makes up the vast majority of defensive gun uses (some 200,000-odd cases every year).

 

[momeNt]

Soooooo... according to what you're implying, owning a gun CAUSES there to be more crimes in that household? I'm not questioning your statistics - I'm questioning the assertions that you and those presenting those statistics are making.

In other words, did you know that in households that own snow shovels, people are 4 times as likely to fall and slip on the sidewalk?

Digest that for a moment. Is that statistic true because people doing something with shovels to cause the sidewalk to become slipperier than usual? Or is it that households that own shovels for clearing snow are... drum roll... more likely to be in locations where there's more snow?


You are making a claim that it's a cause and effect that owning a gun increases the risk to a homeowner. Do your statistics do anything to eliminate instances where there's a strong correlation? E.g., drug dealers may be more likely to own guns - there's more likely to be violence at a drug dealer's house. That doesn't mean that Joe Smith who hasn't hunted in 10 years, and still keeps a hunting rifle (solely) for protection has suddenly increased his risk of violence fourfold. I sincerely question your reasoning ability if you really think that statistic is genuine, versus is simply a correlation due to the fact that a high percentage of high crime homes also have weapons present.

So shovels, like guns, aren't properly used, create conditions that people think are safe, but actually aren't, and cause more harm than good.

Ask any family that has lost a loved one to a slip and fall, they will tell you that given the chance, they would never have purchased that snow shovel, and instead dealt with a little bit of snow in their shoes and wet feet.

 

[shira]

What's the difference between a gun purchased for self defense and a gun purchased for target practice? I don't think if you were presented with the gun you would be able to tell the difference.

If a gun owner says "I purchased this gun to defend my family," that's a "gun for self defense." If a gun owner says "I purchased this gun for target practice" that's not a "gun for self defense."

 

[momeNt]

If a gun owner says "I purchased this gun to defend my family," that's a "gun for self defense." If a gun owner says "I purchased this gun for target practice" that's not a "gun for self defense."

What's the difference in "the gun". How can you ban based on the intent of the purchaser? Not counting mental health flags in background checks.

What are you actually proposing TO DO?

 

[Fern]

Guns kept solely for self defense have a much greater cost than benefit.
-snip-

Where the heck does this info come from? More made up stuff by you?

Every gun I've purchased has gone up in value. Some considerably so. So obviously the cost is not greater than the benefit.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Truth? You're not posting truth. You're posting opinion. You should learn the difference between the two. And yes, Democrats believing that their opinion is truth is a large part of why I despise you. "Liberals" are the new Puritans. You're barely recognizable from the religious right. The only difference is who you worship and which type of morality you want to shove down people's throats.

QFT

Fern

 

[Fern]

If you can point me to the research that documents the statistics of gun ownership and people's reasons for owning them, I'd be happy to "look it up." But I'm not aware of any research in that specific area, and conservatives in Congress are specifically NOT allocating funds for ANY research like that. Why do you think that conservatives don't want such research?

Anyway, in this environment of conservative-enforced ignorance, we're all forced to make guesses, but hopefully educated ones. And since most people don't hunt or target shoot with their handguns, I think my guess that a strong majority of handgun owners own their guns solely for self defense is a pretty good one.
-snip-

JFC, we don't need Congress to blow more of our money on such stuff.

The solution to your so-called "conservative-enforced ignorance" is called google.

I'll help you: http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/

There are so many think tanks, universities and lobby groups that guns and gun ownership etc has been studied to death.

BTW: That air rifle you linked is damn cool, but $3,500?

Fern

 

[shira]

Soooooo... according to what you're implying, owning a gun CAUSES there to be more crimes in that household? I'm not questioning your statistics - I'm questioning the assertions that you and those presenting those statistics are making.

In other words, did you know that in households that own snow shovels, people are 4 times as likely to fall and slip on the sidewalk?

Digest that for a moment. Is that statistic true because people doing something with shovels to cause the sidewalk to become slipperier than usual? Or is it that households that own shovels for clearing snow are... drum roll... more likely to be in locations where there's more snow?


You are making a claim that it's a cause and effect that owning a gun increases the risk to a homeowner. Do your statistics do anything to eliminate instances where there's a strong correlation? E.g., drug dealers may be more likely to own guns - there's more likely to be violence at a drug dealer's house. That doesn't mean that Joe Smith who hasn't hunted in 10 years, and still keeps a hunting rifle (solely) for protection has suddenly increased his risk of violence fourfold. I sincerely question your reasoning ability if you really think that statistic is genuine, versus is simply a correlation due to the fact that a high percentage of high crime homes also have weapons present.

The problem with your argument is that shootings committed at, say, a drug-dealer's home would be classified as homicides, not "accidental shootings" if there was a gunfight ongoing when an unintended person got shot or if the person was shot while being attacked by a family member or some other person in the home. Similarly, the much higher rate of suicides in homes with guns can't be credibly be explained away as due simply to "more violence in the home."

In addition, there are statistics like this:

This week a 2-year-old in South Carolina found a gun in the back seat of the car he was riding in and accidentally shot his grandmother, who was sitting in the passenger seat. This type of thing happens from time to time: A little kid finds a gun, fires it, and hurts or kills himself or someone else. These cases rarely bubble up to the national level except when someone, like a parent, ends up dead.

But cases like this happen a lot more frequently than you might think. After spending a few hours sifting through news reports, I've found at least 43 instances this year of somebody being shot by a toddler 3 or younger. In 31 of those 43 cases, a toddler found a gun and shot himself or herself.

I'm not sure how much of the "4" multiplier these cases make up, but it's awfully difficult to see how cases these these can be explained away as not being inherently due to the presence (and unsafe storage) of guns in the household.

I do agree with you that there are undoubtedly independent variables that affect the overall risk added by introducing a gun into a household. So, for example, it's probably true that the increase in risk when a gun is introduced into an affluent household is smaller than the increase in risk when a gun is introduced into an impoverished household. Unfortunately, there aren't any studies that I'm aware of that have addressed questions like that.

So wouldn't it be wonderful if studies could be performed to slice and dice gun-violence and gun-self-defense data? Wouldn't it be in everyone's interests to know the true tradeoffs between the safety and danger presented by guns in the home?

So how come the NRA and Republicans don't want these studies performed?

 

[shira]

Where the heck does this info come from? More made up stuff by you?

Every gun I've purchased has gone up in value. Some considerably so. So obviously the cost is not greater than the benefit.

Fern

Read the posts. Find the links. I'm not going to keep repeating myself simply because you're too lazy to read.

 

[shira]

JFC, we don't need Congress to blow more of our money on such stuff.

The solution to your so-called "conservative-enforced ignorance" is called google.

I'll help you: http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/

There are so many think tanks, universities and lobby groups that guns and gun ownership etc has been studied to death.

BTW: That air rifle you linked is damn cool, but $3,500?

Fern

That's just the cost of the rifle. You also need a good scope, a carbon-fiber high-pressure tank, and a compressor capable of reaching 4500 psi. You can easily spend $8,000 for a top-quality setup. But these rifles (in calm air) are capable of shooting 3/8" groups at 50 yards. So any misses are entirely the shooter's fault.

 

[BoberFett]

Sorry. I've posted links to reputable websites.

In response, I get lies, denials, twisting of words. But interesting, not a single link.

But I'm the one being dishonest.

Of course you're being dishonest. You're saying there's no reason for anyone to own a gun. Why? Because you say so, and that's the only reason you need.

And being a self proclaimed "enlightened liberal", you believe in your own infallibility and therefore in your mind your opinion has the same weight as fact.

 

[OverVolt]

Keep it locked with children around. Derp.

I know I'm competent enough.

Thats the issue with Shira. What if I'm suddenly incompetent? What if I leave it on the coffee table after an 8 beer bender? (I don't really drink) What if I unlock it in my sleep and use it to shoot the power button to turn on the TV like in the Simpsons? What if I'm not under control of my own actions and go to vegas count cards and come home with a million dollars and have no idea how it got there?

What if man?

My neighbor forgot to lock his up and their kids went on a shooting spree. That could happen to me!?

No you fucking dumbass I lock mine up.

Everybody is responsible for their own actions, you can't legislate common sense into existence nor can you craft laws that are so clever you protect dumb people from themselves.

 

[HTFOff]

Great thread. Will read again.

 

[Fern]

I know for sure that he doesn't. In fact, the gun kind of scares him. He lives by himself, so no "family" to defend.
-snip-

My response here also relates to your post #90 in which you claim that "Guns kept solely for self defense have a much greater cost than benefit".

So, your friend is afraid of guns yet spends good money to purchase one? That should be instructive. I think you're analysis is superficial; too simplistic.

I.e., he purchased the gun to meet a need that outweighed the costs (his fear plus the $'s). Without knowing him I believe he purchased the gun for his 'peace of mind'. He had a concern, a need to feel more secure. The gun met this purpose.

So what if he goes through life never needing to actually use it? For the small price of that gun he has purchased a lifetime of emotional comfort. The cost is greater than the benefit? No.

Fern

 

[OverVolt]

This week a 2-year-old in South Carolina found a gun in the back seat of the car he was riding in and accidentally shot his grandmother, who was sitting in the passenger seat. This type of thing happens from time to time: A little kid finds a gun, fires it, and hurts or kills himself or someone else. These cases rarely bubble up to the national level except when someone, like a parent, ends up dead.

But cases like this happen a lot more frequently than you might think. After spending a few hours sifting through news reports, I've found at least 43 instances this year of somebody being shot by a toddler 3 or younger. In 31 of those 43 cases, a toddler found a gun and shot himself or herself.

Nobody just 'finds' a gun in the backseat of a car.

You don't trust yourself, okay? We get it. I have more self confidence in my competence than you do apparently. Stop trying to project it on everyone else. You obviously don't feel in control of your own actions like I do.

Maybe you are taking pramipexole or ropinirole. I wouldn't trust me either if I was on them.

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/parkinsons-drugs-may-lead-to-compulsive-gambling-102014
http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2014/10/27/rls-drug-triggered-serious-gambling-addiction/